scholarly journals Successful Treatment of Pulmonary Pleomorphic Carcinoma with Nivolumab: A Case Report

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 336-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eriko Fujimoto ◽  
Takashi Yokoi ◽  
Koji Mikami ◽  
Shingo Kanemura ◽  
Eisuke Shibata ◽  
...  

Pulmonary pleomorphic carcinoma (PPC) has a poor prognosis due to the poor results of treatment with systemic chemotherapy. We report the case of a 73-year-old woman with PPC who showed a favorable response to nivolumab. As first-line treatment for postoperative recurrence, she received carboplatin and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel. However, 12 months later, a new metastatic lymph node appeared. Nivolumab was administered as second-line treatment, and the patient showed a favorable prolonged response. The effects of treatment of PPC with nivolumab seem promising. The results of a future prospective study are expected to identify indicators for the treatment of PPC.

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17556-e17556
Author(s):  
A. Benedict ◽  
R. A. Figlin ◽  
C. Charbonneau ◽  
N. Kreif ◽  
S. Hariharan ◽  
...  

e17556 Background: RCC, the most prevalent kidney cancer, is a relatively rare malignancy that carries a poor prognosis. New targeted therapies, such as sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, and bevacizumab + interferon-alfa (IFN-α), are now available in the US for the treatment of mRCC. In the absence of head-to-head trials, the aim of this analysis was to assess the economic value of these therapies as first-line treatment of mRCC from a U.S. third-party payer perspective, using an indirect comparison based on reported survival data. Methods: An economic model was built to simulate progression-free and overall survival based on each treatment's hazard ratio against IFN-α as reported from phase II and III clinical trials. Clinical model parameters were also derived from these trials and complemented with clinical experts’ opinions. Costs of drugs, routine follow-up, treatment-related adverse events, disease progression, and best supportive care of terminally-ill patients were included in the model. Results, expressed as life-years (LY), progression-free LY (PFLY), and quality adjusted LY (QALY) gained, treatment costs (applied in 2008 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), were obtained through probabilistic analysis over a 10-year time horizon. Since the phase III clinical trial of temsirolimus included the MSKCC (modified) poor risk group patients only, two separate evaluations were carried out: (1) comparison of sunitinib, sorafenib, and bevacizumab + IFN-α in all patients and (2) a similar comparison of sunitinib and temsirolimus in the poor-risk group patients only. Results: In the first comparison model, sunitinib was both more effective (with gains of 0.52 and 0.19 PFLY, and 0.17 and 0.03 QALY) and less costly (by $13,675 and $84,260) than sorafenib and bevacizumab + IFN-α, respectively, over 10 years. Similarly, sunitinib was both more effective (with gains of 0.12 PFLY and 0.07 QALY) and less costly (saving $9,605 over ten years) than temsirolimus in patients in the poor risk group. Conclusions: These model results suggest that sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib, bevacizumab + IFN-α, and temsirolimus as a first-line treatment of mRCC. [Table: see text]


2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karthikeshwar Kasirajan ◽  
John M. Marek ◽  
Mark Langsfeld

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document